Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-1687 is a high-severity CSRF (CWE-352) vulnerability in Themeforest (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 8.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 20th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-3 (Access Enforcement) and SC-23 (Session Authenticity) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2025-1687, published on 2025-02-28, is a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability (CWE-352) in the Cardealer theme for WordPress, affecting versions up to and including 1.6.4. The flaw arises from missing nonce validation in the 'update_user_profile' function, which enables forged requests to alter user profiles. It has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 8.8 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H), indicating high severity due to network accessibility, low complexity, no privileges required, and significant impacts on confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
Unauthenticated attackers can exploit this vulnerability by tricking a site administrator into performing an action, such as clicking a malicious link. Successful exploitation allows the attacker to update the administrator's email address and password via the forged request, potentially leading to account takeover.
Advisories recommend updating the Cardealer theme to version 1.6.5 or later, where the issue is addressed, as detailed in the theme's changelog. Further intelligence is available from Wordfence's threat intel page and the theme's listing on ThemeForest.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-5485
Vulnerability Data
The Cardealer theme for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions up to, and including, 1.6.4. This is due to missing nonce validation on the 'update_user_profile' function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to update the user…
more
email and password via a forged request, granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V3.3.2V3.5.1V10.2.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Access enforcement requires verifying that state-changing requests originate from the authenticated user rather than a forged cross-site source.
Protecting session authenticity prevents attackers from replaying or forging authenticated requests via the victim's browser.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure SDLC practices directly require anti-CSRF controls such as tokens or SameSite attributes.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
By denying access to phishing or malicious sites, the control lowers the likelihood that a user will be tricked into submitting a forged request that performs an unintended action on another site.
Contextual intelligence about emerging CSRF toolkits can be translated into updated anti-CSRF token or same-site policy configurations across applications.